FINISH
From family and friend involvement, I know first hand how things sit in the elementary sphere and can categorically state that classrooms and learning are definitely not same, particularly in the make-up of the students. Classrooms today have a much higher proportion of students who have learning difficulties, autism, allergies, etc. Further, there is a much higher proportion of what I'm just going to call 'bad attitudes', both from an interaction perspective as well as physical assault. Lastly, this is not a new thing and has been growing steadily over the past decade or two. Anecdotally from friend involvement and logical determination, the same issues extend through high school and are even exacerbated further due to the fact that the students are now teenagers. All of this combined puts a much greater load on teachers.
In speaking with a relative, a retired high school teacher, he often had classes higher than 25, with 30 being the overall average for many years, however, he also noted the student makeup was very different with students behaving in a much more respectful manner as well as a higher majority who were very proficient at taking a topic and running with it thereby allowing him to focus on those who needed additional guidance despite a high class size.
How does this connect to PC gov actions:
Case Study: Education
"Everyone who has attended a school thinks they are an expert on the education system as they've all experienced it first hand." This was a comment made to me by a very good friend many moons ago when we were discussing education system problems then. The obvious problem here is our experience is simply a snapshot in time. We can even see how things change during our time in the system making it fallacious to think it's more or less the same today.From family and friend involvement, I know first hand how things sit in the elementary sphere and can categorically state that classrooms and learning are definitely not same, particularly in the make-up of the students. Classrooms today have a much higher proportion of students who have learning difficulties, autism, allergies, etc. Further, there is a much higher proportion of what I'm just going to call 'bad attitudes', both from an interaction perspective as well as physical assault. Lastly, this is not a new thing and has been growing steadily over the past decade or two. Anecdotally from friend involvement and logical determination, the same issues extend through high school and are even exacerbated further due to the fact that the students are now teenagers. All of this combined puts a much greater load on teachers.
In speaking with a relative, a retired high school teacher, he often had classes higher than 25, with 30 being the overall average for many years, however, he also noted the student makeup was very different with students behaving in a much more respectful manner as well as a higher majority who were very proficient at taking a topic and running with it thereby allowing him to focus on those who needed additional guidance despite a high class size.
How does this connect to PC gov actions:
- this action is estimated to result in the loss of ~18K teaching positions but will no doubt result in a $0 reduction in tax rate
- the teaching loss will be done via seniority thereby leaving many of the jaded & poor teachers in place while ejecting the younger enthusiastic (and demographically connected: unless they have kids of their own at the same age, hard for the older teachers to connect with the kids unlike younger teachers) from the profession
- based on my paragraphs above, the education experience of the student will very likely not be improved and in fact will very likely get worse
Case Study: NAP and Property Rights
Term:
Non Aggression Principle (NAP)
Definition:
The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion. If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such “victimless crimes” as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as “crimes” at all, since he defines a “crime” as violent invasion of someone else’s person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.
Property Rights
The Donut Problem
Case Study: Socialism
FINISH Currently the idea of Socialism is being bandied about as a solution to the current ills of society. Here's one of the more recent memes being passed around social media "Socialism isn't free stuff. It's getting what you paid for with your taxes rather than giving it away to corporate subsidies." I see, so how does the author of this meme know this? How do the thousands of folks who are sharing this around know this? The truth is they don't because the majority of them have no idea what socialism is, but I'll come back to this in a minute.So what is Socialism really? The concept of socialism is a hodgepodge of ideas that has different meanings to different folks depending on who you ask and how old you are. For those over 50, socialism was evident daily in the Soviet Union (communism is turbo socialism), Marx and Lenin known quantities. We saw what Pol Pot did in Cambodia and the Marxist-Leninist Party in East Germany. We witnessed what was often presented as a more gentle socialism in Castro's Cuba. Today we can watch China, Venezuela and North Korea just to name a few. Interestingly, George Orwell considered himself a democratic socialist despite novels like 1984, but he viewed Soviet communism and totalitarianism as detestable bad things. More on this point later.
Let's try to get a definition firmed up starting with John Martin in 1911. He corresponded with a few of the leading economists and publicists of his day for his article cited with the quote:
John Martin
Definitions of socialism are almost as numerous as the combatants for and against socialism. Unbelievers claim the same right as believers to define the term, as Mark Twain said people should spell according to the dictates of their own conscience. The results are confusion and misunderstanding, muddy thinking and a woeful working at cross purposes in matters of national importance. So bewildering is the babel of voices that some people deny that socialism can be defined at all.
To sum up, the great majority of my correspondents agree that the definition of socialism must include the following points:
1. Public ownership of nearly all the means of production.
2. Operation of these means of production by public officials.
3. Distribution of the income according to rules determined by the community.
4. Private ownership of the income so distributed
Martin, John. “An Attempt to Define Socialism.” The American Economic Review, vol. 1, no. 2, 1911, pp. 347–354. JSTOR, An Attempt to Define Socialism on JSTOR.
Cambridge Dictionary
socialism
the set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs
any economic or political system based on government ownership and control of important businesses and methods of production
an economic, political, and social system that is based on the belief that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money
SOCIALISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
The Canadian Encyclopedia
Socialism is a political doctrine that criticizes the existence of social, economic and political inequality in society. Seeking to lessen class inequality, socialists call for a redistribution of power from the affluent owners to the working class. Socialists favour collective action by workers to overcome their unfavourable condition. They advocate direct economic organization (eg, the formation of trade unions, labour protests and strikes) and political action (eg, the formation of socialist and/or labour parties) with the goal of reorienting the state from defending the powerful few to protecting ordinary workers.
Socialism | The Canadian Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Britannica
Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”
socialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts | Britannica.com
Wikipedia
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.
Socialism - Wikipedia
So we can clearly see that there are various additions and subtractions depending on the source with one exception: in all cases, the means of production are not privately owned, they are public or socially owned. While quite often this ownership is via government or the state, it does not always need to be the case; a community group with collective ownership would be an example of the latter. Another item that is either stated or implied fairly consistently is wealth redistribution from the haves to the have nots. Finally, we have the concept of equality.
The socialism idea generally looks great on the surface but as with many things in life, the closer one looks, the more one removes the shiny exterior, the more the problems are exposed.
Now that we have a definition framework for socialism, let's examine each piece individually.
Equality
A ground up approach is how I prefer to do things and in this context, the idea of equality is the best starting point IMHO. What I find interesting here is the drum beating and banner waving about equality when the idea of all humans being equal is observably false! Quoting from my article "The Story of Us":Expanding on this further, while indeed there are broad groupings we can make, humans have different ambitions, different drives, different levels of work ethic, different moralities, different intelligence, different learning strategies/abilities and so on. Does the person who feels that hurting or killing other humans deserve an equal share in all things society has to offer? No. Does the person who by choice sits around all day doing nothing deserve the same return as the individual expending effort? No. How about those who put in the absolute bare mininum of effort? No. Does the person who knowingly engages in risky and dangerous behaviour have the right to consume equal social health care services? No. Further, in the context of these examples, the individuals often consume more of societies wealth and services than those who are just 'doing their thing'.Toddler
Looking around our observable world, we see a myriad of different creatures, different environments, different resources, etc. In among all of this nature is humanity. When we view ourselves from a distance, it appears that for the most part we are all more or less the same. Zooming in however, we can see this is not really the case. Aside from conjoined twins, each human is an individual standalone unit. Indeed, while we are made up of much of the same material: cells, bone, skin and so on, that is where the 'everyone is the same' stops. Zooming in further, we see different types of cells for example and when organized in the different ways that they are, we get different results. Look further: bones are longer on some, shorter on another. Muscle mass is different. Voices sound different. Skin colour and complexion are different. Even among these similar skin colour groupings we see further differences. Eye colours are different, nose sizes are different and so on.
The Story of Us - Shatter The Illusion (Part One)
The idea that all humans are equal and deserve equality in society is clearly hogwash.
Now, before the pitch forks are pulled out and torches lit, there is an exception, further from The Story of Us:
What humans do have in the form of equality therefore is the right to access, unhindered by any other human, the goods and services produced by the rest of society and the right to enjoy, unhindered by any other human, their justly owned/acquired private property. Hindrance or prevention in either of these cases is aggression. (NOTE: this is not meant to imply that the individual(s) offering a good or service is required to sell it to all others, they have the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime just like any individual has the right to refuse to purchase any good or service at anytime)Toddler
3. Each individual is the sole owner of his or her body and person since we are all equal insofar as we are of the species human and there is no provable evidence that one version of this species has any claim of authority or supremacy over another. Human rights are property rights. One might argue for example that a human born with two legs vs a human born with none would be a 'better' or more 'supreme' human. While the physical abilities of the former vs the latter may well be better or supreme, this has absolutely nothing to do with being a better human or a claim to supremacy, one over the other. There is a caveat here which will be explored further in the libertarianism section as well as being connected to the 4th conclusion: in the case of aggression against an individual, the individual's right to freedom from aggression claims supremacy over the individual who is aggressing. This in turn justifies the use of aggression to defend one's self and property from 3rd party aggression AKA self defence.
The Story of Us - Shatter The Illusion (Part One - Conclusions)
Ownership
Means of Production
This all may seem quite complicated so hopefully I can make it easy to read and digest. It's important to start with a definition as I would wager that most folks don't fully know what this phrase refers to, however, as far as the terminology goes, once again it depends whom you ask.The actual term means of production is most common in Marxist theory and is generally defined as "the raw materials and means of labour (tools, machines, etc) employed in the production process”. Economic thinking often uses the phrase factors of production. For our purposes here, either term will suffice.
From the moment we awake to the moment we sleep (itself an action) each of us acts in an effort to exchange our current situation/status quo for something better. This action to improve status quo can be as simple as brewing that morning cup of coffee or making breakfast all the way to selling labour in exchange for money to put food on the table or buy that bigger house, and beyond.
The means needed or used to satisfy our wants/needs are called goods.
Goods fall into two categories:
a) goods that are ready and directly serviceable to satisfy our wants; the food and drink from the grocery store for example. Immaterials such as friendship for example also fall into this same category. These goods are called consumer goods or consumption goods or for economists, goods of the first order. (NOTE: consumption in this context does not refer only to eating or drinking, to physically consume, but also to use as well, like clothing for example)
b) goods that are used as inputs to produce consumers goods, they are indirectly serviceable. Consider wine for example: the grape would be the producer good, the resulting wine would be the consumer good. Other examples of producer goods would be sugar, car engines and wood. These are the producers goods or intermediate goods or factors of production or for economists, goods of higher order. Factors of production can be further divided into two classes:
- land: those that are readily found in nature, non human elements. It's important to note here that the term land in the case of economics is not used in the geographic sense, although land itself is considered a producers good, but rather all nature given resources: water, air, minerals, plants, animals, climate, etc.
- capital goods: those that are themselves produced, human elements
A helpful description might be land as subjects of labour and capital goods as instruments of labour.
Let’s make things even more complicated shall we: a capital good is different from an intermediate good. Consider the bakery: an oven is used in the process of baking bread but it is not consumed by the process, it still remains intact when finished assuming we didn’t bake too big a loaf to blow it apart. This is referred to as durable so we can add this term to our definition of a capital good. Our bread baking also requires the mixing together of flour, salt, yeast, etc., the ingredients. Through this mixing, and the baking process itself, the production process, these items are transformed into something else and the original individual ingredients consumed; pretty tricky to remove each of these items individually after baking. These are the intermediate goods.
The icing on the proverbial cake (a consumers good
): some goods are both consumers goods and intermediate goods depending on who is using them. Building from the bread example, let’s take salt: salt can be sprinkled liberally over popcorn like a gift from the sky and thus consumed right then and there, a consumers good. In the case of bread however, salt becomes part of the process of creating the bread and is thereby an intermediate good.This last tidbit is an easy one to consume (see what I did there?
): there is one other element that goes into the collection of factors of production and that is labour since without labour, nothing else would happen, there would be no action at all to produce or consume.OK, so let’s wrap this part up in a nice package that is not so complifusing:
Keeping with current economic convention, factors of production is the term to use and this term refers to the items used to produce consumer goods. Components are producers goods, land and labour. The two original factors of production are labour and land as these two are required to create producers goods; planet earth is short on machine bearing trees.
In the context of our discussion on socialism we are going to leave labour out of the equation: while it can be voluntary, sold in units and rented, it cannot be socially or publicly owned, it is forever the private property of the individual.
Wealth/Income Redistribution
This idea is another that seems rosy on the surface but the reality is it’s just another name for theft. Despite what many seem to deny in their efforts to denounce capitalism, western civilization is based on the concept of crony capitalism, that is, government used to provide favourable treatment and rewards to a business and corporate class that is connected to it via various means. As a result of this, much of the wealth of society ends up in the pockets of a few while the rest of the population struggles to make ends meet. It’s no surprise then that the idea of wealth redistribution is so popular: it is felt that wealth earned by the non connected group is stolen from them in the first place and therefore redistribution is simply giving back that which was wrongfully acquired in the first place.This however is just rationalization to accept that this particular case of theft is OK, the ends justify the means and so on. More importantly, it is a band aid approach to dealing with the wound: how is it that we can have such inequality in wealth when some (many?) of the less wealthy are arguably putting in more effort to generate it than those who actually possess it?
Problems with Socialism
Social control still means a small group deciding for the larger group
No measure of costs of production
No market, we can’t know what are we to produce, how and how much?
No profits motives means quotas and quotas means chaos
What about democratic socialism then?
Notable quotes”Robert Murphy”
From the beginning, when Mises would walk through his critique, he would stipulate at the outset that the central planner in a socialist regime had not only good intentions, but also all of the relevant technical knowledge at his disposal. Now to be sure, in the real world these problems do exist: A socialist dictator might be ruthless with his opponents, and (as Hayek stressed) he couldn’t possibly get all of the “facts on the ground” from experts around the country, jammed into his mind in order to make good decisions.
Yet even though these problems are enormous in the real world, nonetheless, for the sake of argument, Mises assumed away the problem of evil and the problem of dispersed knowledge. Yet it would still be the case, Mises claimed, that the socialist planner would be groping in the dark. Even after the fact, the planner would have no way of assessing whether the scarce resources—natural resources, capital goods, and labor—at his disposal were being deployed in the best manner. The socialist planner would have no way of measuring the economic efficiency of his plan for the of society’s resources.
Socialism: The Calculation Problem Is Not the Knowledge Problem | Mises Wire
Free Association: TGIF: Democracy Can't Fix SocialismWikipedia
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]
Democratic socialists espouse that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]
The term democratic socialism is sometimes used synonymously with socialism, but the adjective democratic is sometimes used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist-inspired socialism which to some is viewed as being non-democratic in practice.[4][5] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and Soviet economic model, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and highly centralized command economy that took form in the Soviet Union and other socialist states in the early 20th century.[6]
Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism.[7] In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.[3][8]
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
How to talk to a Socialist
How to talk to a SocialistCase Study: Taxation is Theft
The following paraphrase is representative of some common reasons that are used to defend taxation:
Citizens agree to be taxed when they declare themselves to be citizens/persons/drivers etc. and ask for benefits such as a SSN/SIN, or, the use of a foreign fiat currency which has a tender by law attached to it. Taxes give us hospitals, schools, roads, etc. so they are indeed necessary and justified.
First, two definitions (both from Encyclopedia Britannica for consistency purposes only) and one axiom:
Taxation: "Taxation, imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by governments."
Most other sources I reviewed are similar but it's important to note that the term 'compulsory' has to be included; try not paying taxes in countries of the world where they are levied and one will quickly learn that taxation has nothing voluntary about it.
Most other sources I reviewed are similar but it's important to note that the term 'compulsory' has to be included; try not paying taxes in countries of the world where they are levied and one will quickly learn that taxation has nothing voluntary about it.
Theft: "Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently. The thief need not intend to keep the property himself; an intention to destroy it, sell it, or abandon it in circumstances where it will not be found is sufficient."
Wealth: any wage I earn, wealth I obtain via my own personal labour (including as a business owner who employs the labour of others), wealth obtained by exchange or wealth obtained through gift, and assuming this wage or wealth has not been taken from another without due or agreed upon compensation (theft in other words), is mine and mine alone, my private property to do with as I see fit.
The term 'agree' is synonymous with 'consent' and in order for valid consent to be given, that is, uncoerced free will consent, the following must occur:
- a question has to asked and/or a proposal laid out.
- the person being asked must have the option of choice, must have the option of declining without penalty or retribution.
Looking at the list:
Citizens: being born anywhere on earth gives an individual the right to exist on this planet unmolested assuming they refrain from molesting (read: aggressing against) others. The term and concept of citizenship is simply a registration tool of the state, it is not a right it can give or revoke. Further, a child born in a particular jurisdiction as defined by arbitrary lines on a map cannot give consent to its birth in that location. Invalid
Persons: false equivalency in this context. Every human born on this planet is what we term a person. This is not something that has any consent attached to it in anyway, it is simply a word used to classify individual homo sapiens. Invalid
Drivers: this has nothing to do with taxation only with operation of a motor vehicle. Subpoint: speaking for Ontario but pretty much globally applicable, there is no consent possible since the option to decline without retribution is not given: if you drive without a valid license issued by the state you will have even further wealth removed from you via fine and this will continue until you are forced to either give up driving or agree to obtain the license (the province also claims the right to suspend or revoke the license and/or plates until the fine is paid). Further, if you operate a vehicle without a valid sticker, again purchased from the state, you will also find further wealth removed from you with the same options available as with the license. This is coercive, plan and simple. Invalid
Social security card: I'll use SIN for this discussion. Again, no real choice here so no option for consent as it is virtually impossible to obtain a pay cheque without first obtaining a SIN card. Working under the table is irrelevant to this topic since taxes would not be paid on that income anyway. Additionally, when utilizing other governmental services, which again one has very little choice since the state maintains a coercive monopoly over many of these often required services, it is virtually impossible to do so without a SIN. Invalid
Use of fiat currency: foreign or otherwise, has nothing to do with taxation with the caveat that the state will only accept it (and the cheque book currency based on it) as the payment medium for taxation thereby re-enforcing its fiat. Invalid
To further the point and drawing from discussions I've had with others on this topic, let's hit up the oft used "but who will build the roads?" as a representative counter argument and includes all the usual suspects: roads of course, schools, hospitals, military, etc. Who will build the roads? The same people who built the ones we have, that's who. The state is not a thing, not an entity unto itself and therefore it can't build roads or anything else for that matter. It is simply the term used to describe a group of persons who feel they have some right of authority over others and are acting together to achieve their common goal or goals. Sometimes these goals are similar to those of a large portion of the people residing in the geographic boundaries claimed by it, just as often they are not. In other words, people build the roads, not the state. To say only the group that identifies with the state can build roads (and all other systems this group claims jurisdiction over) is to deny reality and the gazillions of examples of groups of people that don't identify with the state who come together to achieve common goals. One big difference here: in the latter case, those groups often disband once the goal is achieved, potentially reforming into different groups as new goals are identified. In the case of the state, this does not occur. While the seat occupiers of the visible portion of this group may come and go, the underlying structure remains.
"Well, one drives on these roads and taxes paid for them so there." The problem here again is what option(s) were given? Does one have a choice? No, they do not. Invalid
"Sure they have a choice: if you don't like it, don't drive!" So now the justification moves on to denying access to these roads altogether (driving up on peoples lawns is not going to fly and is an aggression against their property rights anyway) and denying one's liberty by not permitting the use of an automobile. On top of that, is the tax rate reduced in any way for non usage of the road? Aside from not having to pay the gas tax, no. Am I permitted to purchase (urban) property to build my own road(s)? Perhaps, however state imposed rules and regs render this virtually impossible. Invalid
"Pfft, private roads, that won't work!" Not true, there are many examples globally of private highways (Ontario has the 407) and while not as prevalent or well defined, private roads exist as well. Invalid
"Only the govt can acquire the land needed to build the roads." Technically this may be true but it is done via the process of
eminent domain
eminent domain:
: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction
my note: the definition claims 'right' and 'superior domain' both of which are bunk in the context of government and the state.
(merriam-webster.com)
. Since one doesn't have a choice to refuse, this process is as much theft as taxation rendering it completely invalid as a counter argument while furthering the notion that the government is a criminal organization. The point is, the state does not need to construct or operate a roadway. Further, perhaps it would be concluded that driving on paved roadways is not the best way to go after all, something like the Moller Skycar might appeal more. Invalid: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction
my note: the definition claims 'right' and 'superior domain' both of which are bunk in the context of government and the state.
(merriam-webster.com)
"But taxation is for the good of population." Bullocks. Setting aside mental illness and/or brain damage (the individual may then not have the comprehension or faculties required to effectively look out for their own general welfare), how do some bureaucrats somewhere, that I'll most likely never meet, know what's best for me or anyone else other than themselves? They don't. Invalid
"The government, spending taxpayers money and doing this or that allowed you to earn a wage, therefore it's only right and just that you pay some back." While the first part of the statement may be true in some instances, it fallaciously presumes that the government was the only group that could have done this or that, whatever this or that may be. Invalid
"What about schools then?" What about them? The argument that only a government can build schools is not only invalid for the reasons as roads but it has another problem: it presupposes the need for humans to be educated via a government operated system in government operated facilities in the first place. The reality is mounds of evidence showing that a government operated system of education is actually failing pretty spectacularly and whether by design, unforeseen consequence or both, this system is churning out generations of grossly under educated people lacking in even the basics of critical thinking. Invalid
"Surely hospitals and a healthcare system then?" Surely not. The private sector is absolutely capable of delivering a healthcare system that is affordable enough for all whilst constantly improving due to competition. Additionally, it's because of government involvement in the healthcare system that current costs are so astronomically high. Invalid
Short story long, three points I'm trying to make here:
- There is no consent involved with taxation and therefore it fits the very definition of theft, full stop. This alone is grounds enough to render both the claim taxation is theft as valid as well as the claim that government is a criminal enterprise.
- While there may be a few services that a larger coordinating body might be more efficient at, there really is nothing that the state, as we currently know it, does that couldn't be achieved (most cases far better) in the free market where folks can opt in/purchase the products and services they require from the producers and providers that they choose, no taxation required. Strong arguments exist that even defence need not be handled by the state in order to be effective. (See: The Myth of National Defence: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production). Derivative point: is the state required at all? No, at least not in the form in which it exists now.
- The act of taxation itself is inefficient, unworkable and has the side effect of benefiting the few at the expense of the many while at the same time stifling advancement, innovation and production.
Supplementary:
Frédéric Bastiat says this in his essay The Law (1850). He considers the overall concept of taxation as 'Legal Plunder' (emphasis mine):Frédéric Bastiat
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder. But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
No individual or group is above the law and that includes the group calling themselves government or state.
While I don't fully agree with Henry Hazlitt on taxes in general, he does a great job outlining the negative economic effects of taxation in his excellent essay Economics in One Lesson (1946) that builds on Bastiat's work:
Henry Hazlitt
There is a still further factor which makes it improbable that the wealth created by government spending will fully compensate for the wealth destroyed by the taxes imposed to pay for that spending. It is not a simple question, as so often supposed, of taking something out of the nation’s right-hand pocket to put into its left-hand pocket. The government spenders tell us, for example, that if the national income is $1,500 billion then federal taxes of $360 billion a year would mean that only 24 percent of the national income is being transferred from private purposes to public purposes.[1] This is to talk as if the country were the same sort of unit of pooled resources as a huge corporation, and as if all that were involved were a mere bookkeeping transaction. The government spenders forget that they are taking the money from A in order to pay it to B. Or rather, they know this very well but while they dilate upon all the benefits of the process to B, and all the wonderful things he will have which he would not have had if the money had not been transferred to him, they forget the effects of the transaction on A. B is seen; A is forgotten.
In our modern world there is never the same percentage of income tax levied on everybody. The great burden of income taxes is imposed on a minor percentage of the nation’s income; and these income taxes have to be supplemented by taxes of other kinds. These taxes inevitably affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken. When a corporation loses a hundred cents of every dollar it loses, and is permitted to keep only fifty-two cents of every dollar it gains, and when it cannot adequately offset its years of losses against its years of gains, its policies are affected. It does not expand its operations, or it expands only those attended with a minimum of risk. People who recognize this situation are deterred from starting new enterprises. Thus old employers do not give more employment, or not as much more as they might have; and others decide not to become employers at all. Improved machinery and better-equipped factories come into existence much more slowly than they otherwise would. The result in the long run is that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper products to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages are held down, compared with what they might have been.
There is a similar effect when personal incomes are taxed 50, 60 or 70 percent. People begin to ask themselves why they should work six, eight or nine months of the entire year for the government, and only six, four or three months for themselves and their families. If they lose the whole dollar when they lose, but can keep only a fraction of it when they win, they decide that it is foolish to take risks with their capital. In addition, the capital available for risk-taking itself shrinks enormously. It is being taxed away before it can be accumulated. In brief, capital to provide new private jobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises. The government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess to solve.
A certain amount of taxes is of course indispensable to carry on essential government functions. Reasonable taxes for this purpose need not hurt production much. The kind of government services then supplied in return, which among other things safeguard production itself, more than compensate for this. But the larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble.